Patches were always made available only after successful completion of the mission. For example, no patches for CRS-7 or Amos-6 are available. I would expect the patch design to be published in their press kit if they have any for this launch unless it leaks before that.

NRO has its own patches

But I am assuming SpaceX will have their own patch too. Correct?And they don't release them until the successful launch is completed (and after splashdown in the case of Dragon missions).

Jim- I assume this means that they won't be ceded launch authority or radio spectrum through the Air Force, but does the NRO have its own "indigenous" authority/spectrum to cover launches not procured through the AF? or were you commenting that SpaceX need "commercial coverage" after all?

Intruder tends to be a West Coast payload, but it can fly from either coast. There have been three past launches from CCAFS. * USA-60 (first launch of the second generation) - Titan IV(405)A from LC-41 * USA-181/NROL-23 (third launch of the third generation) - Atlas IIIB from SLC-36B * USA-194/NROL-30 (fourth launch of the third generation) - Atlas V 401 from SLC-41

I think all of these used CCAFS because there was no available West Coast pad. NROL-30 was launched before the Atlas V pad at Vandenberg was ready for use - I believe the same may have been true with regards the Titan pad for USA-60. Atlas III never had a pad at Vandenberg.

NROL-23 is an interesting case. I've never been entirely sure why that launch used an Atlas III. Until recently I had assumed the contract was awarded after Lockheed Martin discontinued the Atlas II, however ILS announced the NRO contract in 1998 and were still signing Atlas II contracts in 2002. It looks like it was actually awarded through a competitive commercial procurement, with Atlas up against a Delta III (http://www.ilslaunch.com/node/699). So there's past form for using NOSS as a commercial test case.

I agree with Gunter's analysis that it is unlikely, though. From past launches it looks like they have four prime pairs of satellites each with a lifespan of about 10 years. Replacements seem to launch in cycles of four at two year intervals, followed by a four year gap between cycles. Unless something has changed or a satellite is failing, I would not expect to see another Intruder launch until the 2020-2021 timeframe.

I haven't done the maths, but I'm wondering if Falcon would, hypothetically, be able to return to the launch site following a GTO launch with a sufficiently light payload - such as a 2,000 kg 702SP.

I haven't done the maths, but I'm wondering if Falcon would, hypothetically, be able to return to the launch site following a GTO launch with a sufficiently light payload - such as a 2,000 kg 702SP.

Most likely, yes, RTLS is possible. The F9 upper stage can accelerate a 2,000 kg payload through about 1,300 m/s more dv than it can with a 5,300 kg payload like SES-10 which is just on the edge of ASDS recovery. Even a payload as large as 3500 kg could potentially RTLS.

Webcast will cut off launch coverage as usual for NRO missions (like we see with ULA), but will continue for booster landing coverage.

Why do they cut off coverage? Anyone who wanted to track the second stage can, it's a rocket, it's extremely visible. What information does the 2nd stage camera provide that they don't want out? I can see not showing satelite deployment, not showing the bird itself, but not cutting coverage.Does that mean they won't even call out SECO?

Only aft-facing allowed.Only real-time video up to PLF jettison.All cameras off before SV separation (and stay off, even for subsequent burns).Any recorded video needs to be approved/reviewed by the customer before release.

Obviously, any customer can change these rules if they want, but they understand the LV video is useful to the contractors.